Unanswered [0] | Urgent [0]
  

Home / Book Reports   % width Posts: 48


Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline


Gautama 6 / 133  
Jul 25, 2009   #41
If she is acting on impulse, then she is acting at the level of a beast, and we do not normally talk about the intent of beasts.

Lol, is this an argument from tradition? Why shouldn't we talk about the intent of beasts. When she shoots up she intends to gain pleasure. This pleasure is beneficial to her at the moment. Maybe not later on but it still does give some benefit. Just because the bad outweighs the good from a rational perspective doesn't change the fact that there is some good to be had.

And the pleasure she gets is not in fact to her benefit, as you admit.

I never admitted this. Of course it gives her benefit. She benefits from the pleasure. This is simple. The act of shooting up has negative and positive consequences. She shoots up because she wants to experience the positive consequences. Thus she shoots up for selfish reasons. She either thinks that the positive is worth the negative or is simply not thinking about the negative at the time when she shoots up. It is not in her best self interest overall to shoot up but she still does it because she can still gain some benefit even if that benefit is outweighed by bad consequences. Doesn't change the fact that she is acting with selfish intent. Animals and beasts have intent just like everyone else. Mostly they intend to survive and seek pleasure. That is selfish.

You cannot say that selfishness is concern with one's own self-interest, and then argue that someone who acts in a way that they know is contrary to their own best interests is selfish. Sorry.

Here again, I never said this either. You use the phrase "best interests." That assumes that there are multiple interests that a person could pursue. If something is of interest they would gain some sort of benefit from it. This means that there are multiple ways to gain benefit. Some can be more beneficial than others. Rationality helps people to find out which way is the best. The heroin addict doesn't feel that it would be in her best self interest to stop doing heroin because she does not feel that the pain that she would have to endure to go through such a process would be worth the benefit. So she shoots up. She takes one of many routes in her search for self benefit. She does not rationalize very well so she doesnt pick the best route but she still does gain some benefit. You cannot deny that she gains benefit from the pleasure. People are not motivated to do things that they think will be completely harmful to themselves and have no chance of getting any benefit from. There would be no motivation for such behavior. I challenge you to give me an example of anyone exhibiting behavior like this.

You are using your own definition of selfishness. You view selfishness as "doing whatever is in your own best self interest." Its ok for you to have that defintion for yourself but I challenge you to find it in a dictionary. Widely accepted definitions of selfishness simply state that it is a state where one focuses on themselves and attempts to gain benefit. Sure that is my definition but it was at least inspired by the dictionary. You find a dictionary definition that talks about what you are saying.

I think you may be misinterpreting what Ayn Rand is trying to say. She makes her case clear. "rational self interest" not "self interest". That tells us that she feels that there is a difference between "self intersest" and "rational self interest." She prefers rational self interest but there are other forms of self interest outside of that.

You also need to understand that there is a difference between "self interest" and "best self interest." Its like if you found a penny and a nickle on the floor. You only have time to pick up one. You can A: pick up the penny. B: pick up the nickle. or C: not pick up either and keep walking. If you decide to pick up the penny you are acting in self interest because it is beneficial for you to pick up the penny. This is not the choice that is in your own "best self interest", however. That choice would be B, to pick up the nickle.

We were talking about people living in a free market society.

Arguably slaves did exist in a free market society. People simply did not value a slaves work enough to pay them. Who would help the slaves? The government? No no this is a free market remember? If people dont want to pay their slaves for their work then the government cant say otherwise. A free market society is practically contradictory in what it aims to do. Remember in a "free society" people are free to enslave other people. Who will stop them? Just because the government won't enslave you doesn't mean that other people with power won't either. Do you know why there were slaves in america for over 100 years? Because the slave owners were "free" to enslave their workers. Just as big business owners would be able to exploit there workers. What stopped slavery? Government intervention and restriction.

If I want peace of mind, for instance, I can hardly get it by consigning a good man to a place of eternal torture.

Why not? Because you would "feel bad" about doing something like that? That is an argument from emotion not rationality. Give me a logical reason.

I do not want unearned money, for I recognize that unearned money has no value.

Why not? Would you "feel bad" about having unearned money? That isn't rational either. And of course unearned money has value, lol! Thats a completely ridiculous statement. Criminals spend money all the time and get great value from it.

I do not want a woman who would be a mindless automaton or slave given me by a demon.

This is silly too. I didn't say that the woman would be mindless, an automaton, or a slave given to you by a demon. In fact it would be a logical mistake for you to assume that the woman would have any of these characteristics because I said that it would have to be something that you "wanted." Since a woman with such characteristics would not be desirable to you they don't fit into our example and therefore cannot be used in your response.

I do not want better looks, which would make me appealing only to those who judged by outward appearances, and whose opinion consequently does not matter to me.

This is the only response that makes sense but you still have not answered the question. So you wouldn't want looks. Ok fine then what would you want?

If I condemned him unjustly to any sort of prison, then I could not therefore have what I want.

This is another logical mistake. This is in direct contradiction to what I said. You get what you want if you condemn the man. Therefor if you condemn him you could potentially populate the world with randian philosophers.

I suppose I would also desire his friendship, which I also could not gain by condemning him to hell.

But you could potentially gain the friendship of a number of people who were superior to him in any way. How would that not be of more self interest to you? Having one friend or many who think as you do?

Pretty much every response to this question either misinterprets the question, makes a logical error, or uses an emotional argument. Try again.
EF_Sean 6 / 3,491  
Jul 25, 2009   #42
She benefits from the pleasure.

How? In what way does the pleasure benefit her? It corrodes both her body and her mind. Just because she enjoys it doesn't mean that it benefits her. I think we are using the word benefit here differently, too. To me, a benefit, as the root implies, is something that is good for a person. The pleasure gained from heroin is not in this sense a benefit.

The heroin addict doesn't feel that it would be in her best self interest to stop doing heroin because she does not feel that the pain that she would have to endure to go through such a process would be worth the benefit.

But if she knows rationally that her decision is not in her best self-interest (and most addicts do know this), then she is choosing to act in a way that she knows does not maximize her self-interest. Hence, she cannot be said to be acting selfishly, because if she were truly concerned with her own self-interest, then she would act to maximize what she knew to be those interests.

You view selfishness as "doing whatever is in your own best self interest."

No. I view it as A) doing whatever you know to be in your own best self-interest, and B) being concerned enough with your own self-interest to make at least some attempt to figure out what your own self-interests are. A person who doesn't do B is not concerned with their own self-interest, and so is not selfish. A person who does A is acting against their own self-interest, and so is the very opposite of selfish.

You can A: pick up the penny. B: pick up the nickle. or C: not pick up either and keep walking. If you decide to pick up the penny you are acting in self interest because it is beneficial for you to pick up the penny.

But if I know that the nickle is worth more than the penny, and if I view maximizing monetary gain as being in my self-interest, then I am not acting selfishly when I pick up the penny instead of the nickle. Doing so might benefit me more than not picking up either one, but clearly my own benefit is not the primary factor in my decision.

That tells us that she feels that there is a difference between "self interest" and "rational self interest."

No. She makes the distinction because she knows that most people misunderstand the term selfishness. Her book is titled "The Virtue of Selfishness," Not the "Virtue of Rational Self-Interest."

Arguably slaves did exist in a free market society

No. By definition, slaves are not free, and cannot participate in a free market.

Because the slave owners were "free" to enslave their workers.

This is pure equivocation.

Why not? Because you would "feel bad" about doing something like that? That is an argument from emotion not rationality. Give me a logical reason.

Why is it irrational to consider my feelings when determining what is in my self-interest? Surely it is not in my self-interest to arrange to feel miserable, howsoever wealthy I may be. In fact, I think that it would be perfectly logical to consider whether or not doing something would make me happy when evaluating whether or not I should do it. For instance, a doctor generally makes more than a carpenter, but if I really enjoy working with wood, and hate dealing with sickness, surely it is more logical for me to go into the latter profession?

And of course unearned money has value, lol! Thats a completely ridiculous statement. Criminals spend money all the time and get great value from it.

No, unearned money has no value. Criminals can spend money and get value from it only because the the money was originally earned by someone else, and because so many more people earn their money than steal it. If everyone tried to get their money through theft, or if the government merely printed as much as everyone wanted, it would be valueless. In fact, if unearned money was valuable, then people could be allowed to print their own money, and counterfeiting wouldn't be illegal. I guess you could say that crime can pay only because stolen money, like counterfeit money, retains the illusion of having value.

This is silly too. I didn't say that the woman would be mindless, an automaton, or a slave given to you by a demon.

Yes you did. You said that the demon would give anything I wanted, but love cannot be given on someone else's behalf. The demon might be able to create the illusion of love in the woman he provided, but it would only ever be just that, an illusion. In reality, the woman would be a slave whose mind had been altered by dark magic. Moreover, presumably I would want a woman I could love as well as one who loved me. But if I loved her, how could I ever want to see her mind fogged by a demon?

This is another logical mistake. This is in direct contradiction to what I said. You get what you want if you condemn the man

No, the logical mistake is yours. As you presumably know, since you quoted me out of context. The full quote:

"I suppose I would view it as being in my self interest to live in a world in which everyone respected the right of everyone else to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This man is one whom you say I know respects these things. Obviously, I myself must also respect these things for the scenario to hold. If I condemned him unjustly to any sort of prison, then I could not therefore have what I want."

I cannot logically have a world in which everyone respects the right of everyone else to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, if I myself fail to do so. I was pointing out in this list, systematically, that none of the things that I might want could in fact be given by the demon in your scenario. The nature of them precludes it.

But you could potentially gain the friendship of a number of people who were superior to him in any way. How would that not be of more self interest to you? Having one friend or many who think as you do?

Populating the world with Randian philosophers would not make the man I condemned my friend, nor make his friendship as a good man any less desirable to me. Nor could any friends at all be given me by the demon. He could give me people who would act like my friends, but true friendship must be freely given, a mutual exchange of willing affection. Unearned friendship, like unearned money, has no real value.

What I want, then, is true friendship, love, and the sense of satisfaction that comes from having earned my living. The demon can give me none of these things, and so your scenario fails.

Pretty much every response to this question either misinterprets the question, makes a logical error, or uses an emotional argument. Try again.

No. My original responses are perfectly logical. You are the one who has posited an impossible scenario, as the demon cannot logically give me the things I want, as in giving them he would destroy their essence. Nor, as I pointed out above, is an emotional argument necessarily an illogical one. Indeed, if my only response were to be "No. Accepting the deal would make me feel bad," then that would in fact be a perfectly logical reason for rejecting the deal, as I view suffering from a lifetime burden of endless guilt as being against my rational self-interest.
Gautama 6 / 133  
Jul 27, 2009   #43
I view it as A) doing whatever you know to be in your own best self-interest, and B) being concerned enough with your own self-interest to make at least some attempt to figure out what your own self-interests are. A person who doesn't do B is not concerned with their own self-interest, and so is not selfish. A person who does A is acting against their own self-interest, and so is the very opposite of selfish.

This is a semantical argument. We have been using different definitions for the same word. If I were to think if the situation using your definition then it would make perfect sense to me and you would be right. I don't however accept your definition because I simply cannot find it in a dictionary. Also, you pointed out that words are defined by popular usage. Your usage of the word "selfishness" is a different definition than what most english speakers would use. It is tailored to fit into the Randian thought process, which is ok but be careful that you don't create your own jargon by altering commonly used words. This can be a source of much confusion as it was here. Ha ha, maybe I am wrong here as I was about the definition of communism. If I am then prove it by showing me a definition from a verifyable source that represents what you are trying to say.

This is pure equivocation.

This leads me to question whether you really know what equivocation is. How is this an equivocation? If you have absolute freedom then you can do whatever you want, including (provided you are powerful enough) enslaving others. In a free market business owners set their wages as low as possible and since the workers have no alternative they are forced to work under terrible conditions. This is a form of slavery to me. This does hinge on a limited view of wealth, however, so you can disregard that if you must, lol.

No, unearned money has no value. Criminals can spend money and get value from it only because the the money was originally earned by someone else, and because so many more people earn their money than steal it.

You just contradicted yourself. You say that unearned money has no value and then you immediately say that criminals can get value from stolen money. It has monetary value. Yes it is based on a lie and an illusion but you can still spend it and as long as people have faith that your money is legitimate it will have value.

Yes you did. You said that the demon would give anything I wanted

Wow, sean I am surprised at you. This is the second time you have deliberately twisted what I said. I never said anything about a demon. Go back to my original post and look for yourself. You created the idea of a demon in order to spin the argument so it sounds like some sort of evil witch craft. Also we are not talking about a real life situation. By the very rules that I set out for this experiment you would not gain anything you did not want, therefore anything that you respond to that includes you potentially gaining something that you do not want is irrelevant because it was never allowed into the example in the first place.

In reality, the woman would be a slave whose mind had been altered by dark magic.

Just listen to this! Why are you inventing all of these ideas of demons and dark magic? This is one of the most obvious straw man arguments I have ever seen! Of course my argument sounds silly if you spin it like that. The woman's mind would not be altered by any magic. You could be potentially sent to another dimension where things were only slightly different. Perhaps in this dimension the woman truly loves you. In this dimension she is not a slave to anything and her mind has not been altered, she loves you of her own accord. But remember finding out ways to dismantle my few suggestions of things you may want is irrelevant because as soon as you dismantle them they become irrelevant to the example, lol.

could I ever want to see her mind fogged by a demon?

Don't have anything more to say really but this is just a great example of a straw man. Her mind is fogged by a demon... This is all purely your own invention used to discredit my argument.

I cannot logically have a world in which everyone respects the right of everyone else to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, if I myself fail to do so.

Do you believe in sacrifice? You could potentially sacrfice this one man and go against your own philosophy in order to populate the whole world with people who respect each other's rights. Rationally how does it not make sense to sacrifice this one man in order to save the whole world from suffering at the hands of rights abuses? 2 choices: A- you save one man but the world still has widespread injustice. B- you condemn one man and save billions from injustice. So will you save one man or save a billion?

It's like nuclear proliferation. Once everyone else disarms their nukes we will disarm ours. You could do the same. Once everyone else starts respecting each other's rights, you could go back to doing the same. Then you would get what you want, a world full of people (including yourself) who respect each other's rights.

What I want, then, is true friendship, love, and the sense of satisfaction that comes from having earned my living. The demon can give me none of these things, and so your scenario fails.

What occured to me is that you could potentially just gain complete happiness forever. Wouldn't you choose that? It wouldn't matter to you if you had earned it or not because that fact wouldn't bother you anymore. You would be completely happy and satisfied at all times forever. You could even potentially be sent to a reality where things would work out exactly how you wanted them too in order for you to gain perfect satisfaction but you could have your memory erased so you would not know that you were in an alternate reality. Try being a little more creative.

You are the one who has posited an impossible scenario, as the demon cannot logically give me the things I want, as in giving them he would destroy their essence.

This is only true when you twist my words around and invent silly things like demons, dark magic, and mind control and then try to pass them off as things that I said.

Nor, as I pointed out above, is an emotional argument necessarily an illogical one.

Making decisions guided by your own emotional whims is not logical at all. It may be logical to avoid emotional pain but the pain it self is not logical or rational. It is completely irrational. But see that's my point. You are now admitting that you do not make decisions based purely on rationality. You do follow your own whims at times which are irrational. In fact, the goal of seeking self benefit itself is an arbitrary goal. Try to rationalize why you seek to benefit yourself. Be careful not to use a circular argument. If you say that self benefit has intrinsic value then I challenge you to rationalize that.
EF_Sean 6 / 3,491  
Jul 27, 2009   #44
I don't however accept your definition because I simply cannot find it in a dictionary.

But the definition you gave, presumably from a dictionary, was "Concerned with one's own self interest." I only pointed out that you cannot say one is concerned with their own self-interest if they neither attempt to figure out what is in their interest, nor act to consistently maximize whatever they do know to be in their own interest.

How is this an equivocation?

Because a free market isn't free if everyone is not allowed to participate in it freely. More to the point, we have been using "free" in the sense in which it is normally used here in the West, i.e. as free to do whatever one wants as long as one does not infringe on the rights of others. That is, liberty, not anarchy. To talk about people being "free" to own slaves is to introduce another definition of "free" than the one we have both been implicitly using, which is the very meaning of equivocation.

In a free market business owners set their wages as low as possible and since the workers have no alternative they are forced to work under terrible conditions.

Or they can work elsewhere, if necessary in another profession altogether. Or, they can set out to start their own business, by identifying a need or a want that is not currently being met in their area, and then devising a way to fill it. A business staffed almost entirely by formerly homeless people sprang up recently in Washington. Someone was smart enough to realize that, with only limited room available in Congressional meetings, lobbyists would pay good money to have someone stand in line, if necessary days in advance, to secure them a spot. The people in this company earn anywhere from $20-$35/hour. For standing in line. As you said to me later in your post "try being more creative." Why do all of your workers ever have only one skill, and why do they all seem to be unable or unwilling to master any other? Workers have plenty of free resources they can draw on. Libraries alone are a powerful educational resource that would allow any sufficiently ambitious and intelligent worker to educate himself to work a better job than the one he has. Most libraries also offer free internet access, free email accounts are easy to find, so sending out resumes and cover letters, as well as receiving responses, is possible, again without any real starting capital.

As for those who lack the intelligence and/or character necessary to advance their own interests independently, well, I see no reason why those who do should be forced to support them (enslaved to them, in essence). I have no objection, if you believe that such people do have some sort of intrinsic value, to your using your own resources to help them, nor to your encouraging other people to use their resources to help them. Both of these are fully allowed in a capitalist society. I only object to your forcing those who don't agree with you to do so. Stealing to help others is no more just or moral than stealing to benefit one's self.

You say that unearned money has no value and then you immediately say that criminals can get value from stolen money.

Because the money was originally earned, yes. This isn't a contradiction. You merely truncated my sentence to alter its meaning.

This is the second time you have deliberately twisted what I said. I never said anything about a demon. Go back to my original post and look for yourself.

Let's see. You posited a hell, and a temptation -- get whatever I want by condemning an innocent man to an eternity there. I'm sorry, but the sort of entities that go around offering such deals are generally called demons.

Also we are not talking about a real life situation. By the very rules that I set out for this experiment you would not gain anything you did not want

No, it isn't a real life situation. It is a fantasy in which you have to keep making the scenario increasing "creative," i.e "fantastic," in order to make your point. Fine. You win. If you posit a scenario in which it would be morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent person, then I agree that in such a scenario it would in fact be morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent person. Really, that's what you are trying to do, isn't it? It's a circular argument, though, that has no bearing on how we should act in the real world.

Rationally how does it not make sense to sacrifice this one man in order to save the whole world from suffering at the hands of rights abuses? 2 choices: A- you save one man but the world still has widespread injustice. B- you condemn one man and save billions from injustice. So will you save one man or save a billion?

What makes you think that I am morally responsible for the actions of others? I am responsible only for my own actions, and have no right to "sacrifice" an innocent man for any reason. I put the word "sacrifice" in quotes, because I am not really sacrificing anything, any more than a common thief "sacrifices" his victim's rights. He merely violates them. If the man, knowing his death will benefit the world immensely, chooses to sacrifice himself, well, that is his choice, and perhaps it would be a noble one. If I murder him, though, to accomplish my goals, that is not noble. And it doesn't matter what my goals are, whether they involve only my own well-being or that of society as a whole. And this of course is the mind set of the left, the easy willingness to sacrifice, not themselves, but others to accomplish their goals. And in real life, where there is no demon, or whatever you would prefer to call it, to manipulate the world in fantastic ways, it wouldn't work. A world in which people were allowed to "sacrifice" others to their own conception of justice is one in which injustice must be rampant, because such "sacrifices" are always unjust.

And this was the point I was trying to make with my previous discussion of your hypothetical examples. In the real world, all of the things I want cannot be given. They must be earned. In the real world, no one can give me other people's friendship or other people's love. They may be able to give me other people's money, but to the extent that they do so, they devalue what they are giving. And in the real world, you cannot create more justice by acting unjustly. You can of course imagine fantasy worlds where this might be possible, just as you can imagine a fantasy world in which people don't need to work at all because they can conjure whatever they need into existence by magic, but that isn't logical proof of anything.

Making decisions guided by your own emotional whims is not logical at all. It may be logical to avoid emotional pain but the pain it self is not logical or rational. It is completely irrational. But see that's my point. You are now admitting that you do not make decisions based purely on rationality. You do follow your own whims at times which are irrational.

Hmmm . . . where to start on this one? People are emotional beings as well as rational ones. It is therefore irrational to consider what is in our best interests without taking our emotions into account. That doesn't mean that we should make decisions based on emotional whims. Just because I feel angry at the moment doesn't mean I should smash my monitor, for instance. The short-term pleasure I might derive from the violent act would have consequences that would lead to long term unhappiness. But, if I had recently bought a new monitor, and planned to throw this one away anyway, then smashing it might actually be perfectly acceptable, and kinda fun. So, I believe that my self-interest involves maximizing my long term happiness, which requires me to rationally identify what needs and desires need to be met for that to happen, and to figure out, rationally, how best to go about meeting them.

In fact, the goal of seeking self benefit itself is an arbitrary goal.

What do you mean by this? Any goal we set for itself can be viewed as arbitrary. The poor workers you are so concerned about, for instance, seem to have an arbitrary goal of not working in terrible conditions. You seem to have the arbitrary goal of helping them. Both are perfectly fine goals, as far as I am concerned. It's when you decide to pursue those goals by stealing from others that I object.

In any event, apart from the notion that any goal can be viewed as arbitrary, we have clearly evolved to want to survive. What we need to survive is determined by our nature, and so food, shelter, etc. are not arbitrary in any meaningful sense. Likewise, how to best go about getting these things, whether through productive labor, or through plundering the productive labor of others (and really, they have to be obtained ultimately through productive labor, one way or the other) is determined also by our natures, and by the nature of reality.

Try to rationalize why you seek to benefit yourself.

Why? That's sort of obvious. You have essentially asked me to explain why I seek that which is good for me. There is no answer possible there except "because it is good for me." It would make more sense for me to ask you why you seek to benefit others. I am especially interested in why you believe you should do so even if it harms you (in both the short and the long term). Of course, until this point, you haven't really be arguing in favor of that. You have been arguing in favor of "sacrificing" other people to help yet other people. Specifically, you have been arguing in favor of sacrificing the strong and the competent (except for yourself) to help the weak and incompetent. So, here's a hypothetical for you. An angel offers you a choice -- condemn yourself to an eternity of hell, and it will arrange for everyone else to be happy forever. Or, don't condemn yourself, and things stay as they are. Would you really choose the former? And if so, why? I'm guessing you won't find such "sacrifices" so appealing when you are the one being sacrificed.
Gautama 6 / 133  
Jul 28, 2009   #45
I only pointed out that you cannot say one is concerned with their own self-interest if they neither attempt to figure out what is in their interest, nor act to consistently maximize whatever they do know to be in their own interest.

You see this only works if you assume that "self interest" actually means "best self interest." There are more ways than one to pursue self interest but you insist that there is only one way and that doing anything else besides this one course of action would not be in your self interest. That is a definition that is not in the dictionary and is not commonly used in the english language. It is "your" definition which I will again say is fine to have but it must be used with care because not many others will truly understand the specifics of what you mean when you say self interest. (Unless they are familiar with Randian philosophy I guess.)

To talk about people being "free" to own slaves is to introduce another definition of "free" than the one we have both been implicitly using, which is the very meaning of equivocation.

I understand what you are saying. I meant more that the more free a society gets the more freedom people have to take other's freedom's away. I would argue that in pure capitalism with no government intervention we would have something that would come about as close to slavery as you could get without actually touching it. I view the road to slavery as more of a progression rather than a distingiushable line that can be crossed. Workers in the 1920s who worked their asses off but never got to see any promotions and barely got food on the table were pretty close to enslavement in my eyes. Yeah they could leave the company but the consequences would be great just as if a slave had left his plantation. This would only work with a limited view of wealth, I know. I just wanted to clarify.

Because the money was originally earned, yes. This isn't a contradiction. You merely truncated my sentence to alter its meaning.

If people have faith that your money has value and you are able to spend it then it has value. Just because it is based on a lie doesn't mean that it doesn't have value. If it had no value you wouldn't be able to spend it. Money has whatever value the people determine it to have. If people determine it to have value then it will have value. It is irrelevant whether or not it was stolen or who did what legitamately or illegitimately. If people have faith that it has value then it has value. If it didn't you couldn't spend it. Simple.

Let's see. You posited a hell, and a temptation -- get whatever I want by condemning an innocent man to an eternity there. I'm sorry, but the sort of entities that go around offering such deals are generally called demons.

Remember right after I said "hell" I stated that you could disregard that label. I used the term hell just to help you visualize that it was a place of suffering. I corrected myself in the same post by saying that it was a place of eternal torture. I even said that my example had nothing to do with god. You created religious meanings and inserted them into my example. You later accuse me of saying that I have to be more and more fantastic in order to keep the example alive in the face of your criticism but you yourself are guilty of the same thing in your attempts to discredit it.

The whole point of this example was to see if you would actively injure or suppress other's if you truly believed it to be in your own rational self interest. You have convinced me that you would not because you cannot imagine an example where it would be in your own RSI to harm others unjustly. I just had a problem with you misinterpreting my example and inventing silly images of demons in order to discredit it rather than just trying to simply answer the question.

Hmmm . . . where to start on this one? People are emotional beings as well as rational ones. It is therefore irrational to consider what is in our best interests without taking our emotions into account.

Emotions are irrational and arbitrary. Happiness is not rational either. What gives you happiness is arbitrary and cannot be rationalized without circular argumentation. If your goal is happiness then you have an irrational goal. So you are saying that you must pursue an irrational goal with rational methods? Thats ok, I can understand that but it just means that "self interest" at it's core cannot be rational. We can pursue it through rational methods but it itself is arbitrary and based on emotional fullfillment.

Why? That's sort of obvious. You have essentially asked me to explain why I seek that which is good for me. There is no answer possible there except "because it is good for me."

The answer isn't so obvious if you can't come up with it. Don't you see that what you have said is a circular argument? Its like saying "why do you like the color green? Because it is green." That isn't an answer at all. You are simply restating the conditions that the question was based on. It's ok because I did not expect you to have an answer. I don't think anyone can answer that question because no one knows the answer. "because it is good for me." is not a possible answer because it doesn't offer any reason "why."

I am especially interested in why you believe you should do so even if it harms you (in both the short and the long term).

I never said this.

You have been arguing in favor of "sacrificing" other people to help yet other people.

I never said this.

Specifically, you have been arguing in favor of sacrificing the strong and the competent (except for yourself) to help the weak and incompetent.

I never said this or the parenthetical statement attached to it.

An angel offers you a choice -- condemn yourself to an eternity of hell, and it will arrange for everyone else to be happy forever. Or, don't condemn yourself, and things stay as they are. Would you really choose the former? And if so, why? I'm guessing you won't find such "sacrifices" so appealing when you are the one being sacrificed.

Seeing as how the preceding statements to this example are false I don't really see the point but ok. No, I would not sacrifice myself. Remember how I said that "everyone's" agenda is secretely to follow their own self interest? I follow mine. I would like to see the world as a better place and I am willing to make personal sacrifices for that to happen because I know that the sacrifice that I make is outweighed by the emotional satisfaction that I would gain. If I condemn myself then I cannot gain anything and that wouldn't be as you would say a rational thing to do. I would give money to help those in need and it would limitedly hurt me financially but the emotional gains would be worth it.

Remember, I never said that such sacrifices were appealing so to state that they would not be appealing if I were the one being sacrificed proves nothing. I was asking you if you would sacrifice someone else for your own self benefit. I would not approve of such behavior but I wanted to see if you would.
EF_Sean 6 / 3,491  
Jul 28, 2009   #46
You see this only works if you assume that "self interest" actually means "best self interest."

Not at all. A person could still make a mistake, and misidentify what is in their self-interest, and so act selfishly by pursuing something that is not in their "best self-interest." But if they aren't even trying to figure out what is in their best self-interest, or if they act in a way they know isn't in their best self-interest, then they are clearly not acting out of concern with their own self-interest.

Money has whatever value the people determine it to have.

This is a common but serious misunderstanding of money. Again, if it were true, government could print out enough to avoid ever going into debt, or people could simply manufacture their own. Money is merely a symbol of productive value, and is only as valuable as the productive efforts that produced it.

Emotions are irrational and arbitrary.

If this were true, then we would not be capable of empathy, because we would be unable to imagine what irrational and arbitrary emotions someone else might be feeling in any given situation. As it is, we can. Emotions are generally quite predictable, with the same situation tending to produce the same emotional response is each of us. So, emotions are not arbitrary. On the contrary, they have evolved to let us know when we are on the right track, and when we are not. So, when we are happy, that indicates that we are probably doing things right. But, our emotional mechanisms are not foolproof. For instance, eating a lot of fat and sugar makes us happy, because we evolved in a world where these were rare commodities that we should normally stock up on whenever possible. Now, they are readily available, and so the short-term happiness of eating them can lead us to long term misery resulting from health problems. So, we need to pursue our emotional goals rationally. But, I wouldn't say that our emotions are irrational or rational. They merely are, and need to be taken into account when determining our self interest.

If your goal is happiness then you have an irrational goal. So you are saying that you must pursue an irrational goal with rational methods? Thats ok, I can understand that but it just means that "self interest" at it's core cannot be rational.

You still haven't explained why it is irrational for an emotional being to pursue happiness.

The answer isn't so obvious if you can't come up with it. Don't you see that what you have said is a circular argument? Its like saying "why do you like the color green? Because it is green." That isn't an answer at all. You are simply restating the conditions that the question was based on. It's ok because I did not expect you to have an answer. I don't think anyone can answer that question because no one knows the answer. "because it is good for me." is not a possible answer because it doesn't offer any reason "why."

It's not so much that its a circular argument as that you are asking me to explain a tautology, which by definition doesn't need explanation. A benefit can be defined as "something that is good, something that improves our lives, something that is desirable" Then you ask me "why do you seek benefits. i.e. why do you desire them?" So your question can be interpreted as "why do I desire that which is desirable?" What answer did you expect except "because it is desirable." Ask a foolish question, and get a foolish answer. Perhaps you meant to ask me "What makes something desirable?" To which I might have answered "it either makes it easier for us to survive, improves our overall well-being, or gives us pleasure, or some combination of the three."

I was asking you if you would sacrifice someone else for your own self benefit. I would not approve of such behavior but I wanted to see if you would.

Then again you asked a poor question. I cannot "sacrifice" someone else. I can murder, rob, or rape them. The only question becomes "Do I believe that it is better to live in a world in which men murder, rob, and rape, or one in which no one does these things?" I believe it is in my self-interest to live in the latter sort of world, so I refrain. Also, I am capable of empathy. As a person capable of empathy, I would feel great guilt if I inflicted pain on an innocent person. I do not view feeling guilt as being in my emotional self-interest. I do, however, believe that it is in my self-interest to have empathy, so I would not choose not to be empathetic, even though that would free me from guilt. Now, if I believed that having empathy were not in my self-interest, and if I could actually stop being empathetic, and if I believed that it were in my interest to live in a world in which men murdered, raped, and robbed (not necessarily in that order) then yes, I would "sacrifice" others. But in that scenario, I would not be me, nor the world the way it is.

I never said this.

Actually, you did.

. Rationally how does it not make sense to sacrifice this one man in order to save the whole world from suffering at the hands of rights abuses? 2 choices: A- you save one man but the world still has widespread injustice. B- you condemn one man and save billions from injustice. So will you save one man or save a billion?

Given the context of our discussion, you were clearly pushing for the "a billion" answer. So, you were advocating "sacrificing" others (one man) to save others (a billion).

And this is what communism, socialism, and all the "altruistic" economic systems always and forever end up doing: sacrificing some people for the benefit of others. Only it isn't sacrifice, because you can't sacrifice someone else. It's oppression. I believe that it is better to live in a world without oppression than one with it, that it is in fact in my self-interest.
Gautama 6 / 133  
Aug 8, 2009   #47
sorry I've been away so long.

Money is merely a symbol of productive value, and is only as valuable as the productive efforts that produced it.

It does serve as a symbol but it can easily be manipulated and for those who don't know that this manipulation has occured it still has value. The government prints money all the time and spends it. The value goes down, yes, but only slowly. If I had a printing press I could print a billion dollars and spend it because that money has value in the people's eyes. Eventually the markets would adjust to compensate for this new billion dollars that appeared out of thin air and the value of money would go down but since I spent the billion I got value out of it therefor the unearned money I created had value for me.

If this were true, then we would not be capable of empathy, because we would be unable to imagine what irrational and arbitrary emotions someone else might be feeling in any given situation.

This is simply a non sequitur. Behavior can be irrational and arbitrary and still be predictable. Also you can read people's emotions just by looking at them regardless of their situation.

Emotion's are arbitrary in the sense that they have been arbitrarily assigned for each situation. For instance the average person might get angry everytime he is punched. His response is predictable: he gets punched - he gets angry. It is arbitrary, though, that we would feel anger when we get punched. Why would we be angry about that? Because something bad happened to us? Well why would that anger us? Why does injustice and negativity make us angry? It's arbitrary that anger is assigned to those situations. It is still understandable and thus you can feel empathy.

Same goes for irrationality. You can feel empathy for other people's emotions even though they are irrational. You know what their emotions feel like because you have experienced them yourself. You know what emotion the person is going through because of various verbal and non verbal communication. Empathy is possible.

You still haven't explained why it is irrational for an emotional being to pursue happiness.

The pursuit of happiness is irrational. You can't rationalize the reason why you pursue happiness.

It's not so much that its a circular argument as that you are asking me to explain a tautology, which by definition doesn't need explanation.

Tautology is simply unwarranted or excessive repetition. I asked a question.

So your question can be interpreted as "why do I desire that which is desirable?" What answer did you expect except "because it is desirable." Ask a foolish question, and get a foolish answer.

That is a misinterpretation. My question is "why seek the desirable?" I already know why you desire things. I know what makes things desirable. I want to know why you act on those desires. It's a different question entirely. And by the way asking a foolish question doesn't warrant a foolish answer it just shows that both parties are fools.

I do not view feeling guilt as being in my emotional self-interest. I do, however, believe that it is in my self-interest to have empathy, so I would not choose not to be empathetic, even though that would free me from guilt.

Why is it in your self interest to have empathy? How does that help you at all?
Wouldn't it be better to be able to percieve other people's emotions in an unemotional way?

Actually, you did.

Show me the quote.

Given the context of our discussion, you were clearly pushing for the "a billion" answer. So, you were advocating "sacrificing" others (one man) to save others (a billion).

What's your point?

And this is what communism, socialism, and all the "altruistic" economic systems always and forever end up doing: sacrificing some people for the benefit of others. Only it isn't sacrifice, because you can't sacrifice someone else. It's oppression. I believe that it is better to live in a world without oppression than one with it, that it is in fact in my self-interest.

You are avoiding answering the question and you are going off topic. Why are you still talking about communism? I thought we were done with that. What more are you trying to prove on that subject? This is irrelevant to the current conversation.
EF_Sean 6 / 3,491  
Aug 8, 2009   #48
This is simply a non sequitur. Behavior can be irrational and arbitrary and still be predictable. Also you can read people's emotions just by looking at them regardless of their situation. Emotion's are arbitrary in the sense that they have been arbitrarily assigned for each situation. For instance the average person might get angry everytime he is punched. His response is predictable: he gets punched - he gets angry. It is arbitrary, though, that we would feel anger when we get punched.

Actually, no, they can't. If something is arbitrary and irrational, then there would be no way to rationally predict it. The fact that people get angry when punched, for example, means that the anger isn't arbitrary -- it has a very specific cause. In this case, the cause seems wholly rational. Being punched causes pain and indicates likely further aggression on the part of the puncher, who may continue to inflict more severe damage if not stopped. It therefore makes sense to stop him, and, given that the behavior associated with anger tends to be reciprocal violence, anger is a wholly appropriate emotion. It's almost as if we evolved emotions under intense selective pressures, and that they tend therefore to operate in very predictable ways likely to maximize our chances of survival in primitive situations.

It does serve as a symbol but it can easily be manipulated and for those who don't know that this manipulation has occured it still has value.

No, it doesn't. They believe it does, and so act accordingly, but counterfeit money is in fact worthless. Otherwise, no one would be upset if they discovered the bills they were being offered were counterfeit.

Eventually the markets would adjust to compensate for this new billion dollars that appeared out of thin air and the value of money would go down but since I spent the billion I got value out of it therefor the unearned money I created had value for me.

Again, it doesn't. You created as much value in the money you produced as if you had cut up blank pieces of paper, then gone out and stolen whatever you had purchased by fraud in the first scenario, leaving the blank pieces of paper behind as "payment." The fake money in your scenario has exactly the same value as the blank pieces of paper in mine. Counterfeiting is a cleverer form of theft, as all frauds are, but like outright theft, it produces absolutely nothing of value.

That is a misinterpretation. My question is "why seek the desirable?" I already know why you desire things. I know what makes things desirable. I want to know why you act on those desires. It's a different question entirely

No, it isn't. If we seek something, we do so by definition because we desire to find it. So, you are really asking me why we desire the desirable. And that involves a tautology.

The pursuit of happiness is irrational.

Again, you have not shown why this is true. Repeating it over and over is not an argument in its favor. We are emotional beings. As emotional beings, it seems perfectly rational to seek to maximize our positive emotions and minimize our negative ones.

You are avoiding answering the question and you are going off topic. Why are you still talking about communism?

I could as well say that you went off topic when you stopped talking about communism, and that I was bringing us back on topic. In any event, you said you would want to know if I would sacrifice someone else for my benefit. I was pointing out that this is impossible. I can sacrifice myself. I can murder, rob, and rape others. I believe it is in my self-interest to live in a world in which people do not murder, rob, and rape, hence I do not see "sacrificing" others as ever being in my long-term self-interest. That directly addressed what you said. I note you chose not to respond to those points.

**********************************************

Okay, a lot of the conversation now seems to revolve around you asking where our emotions come from. Or rather, trying to ask. You have formulated your questions poorly, I suspect, which is why my answers seem unsatisfactory to you, as I am responding to what you actually asked, rather than to what you should have asked. So, to respond to what I think you meant, rather than what you actually said:

Our emotions arise as a complex interplay of genes and environment. The genetic component gives us built in emotional responses. So, physical pain makes us unhappy, physical pleasure makes us happy, threats from others make us angry, etc. However, our short term emotional responses may be misleading. For instance, in some situations, being nice to an opponent instead of lashing out at him might make more sense. So, we can overrule our emotions, at least temporarily, based on rational thought. However, the goal for which we overrule those emotions is always going to be one that we believe will contribute to our long-term happiness, because our happiness is essentially an inbuilt indicator that things are going well. As such, it is not arbitrary. That is, what makes us happy, truly, deeply, lastingly happy, is likely to be that which most benefits us physically, socially, etc. In other words, our emotions aren't random phenomena unconnected to any other aspect of our being. They are instead a reflection of how things stand in our lives, and how we see them progressing.

So, emotions are not arbitrary, though they may seem that way at times because of their environmental component. They are also not irrational. They are, if anything, arational. That is, they are neither rational nor irrational, they simply are. To the extent that they serve as psychological indicators of our overall level of well-being, it makes a certain amount of rational sense to pay attention to them. Also, we have to live with our emotions, and it therefore makes just as much rational sense to avoid mental pain and seek mental pleasure as it does to avoid physical pain and seek physical pleasure. Even you would probably agree it would be more rational to choose to spend the night in peaceful sleep over spending it being tortured, rather than the other way around.

The above does of course involve a fair amount of oversimplification, but that's unavoidable when talking about human emotion in a post-size piece of text.


Home / Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline
Writing
Editing Help?
Fill in one of the forms below to get professional help with your assignments:

Graduate Writing / Editing:
GraduateWriter form ◳

Best Essay Service:
CustomPapers form ◳

Excellence in Editing:
Rose Editing ◳

AI-Paper Rewriting:
Robot Rewrite ◳